MANJU GOYAL,BIKANER vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BIKANER
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the amended provisions of Section 115BBE, effective from December 15, 2016, cannot be applied retrospectively to income surrendered during a survey conducted on August 23, 2016. Since the surrendered income was explained as business income, the pre-amendment tax rate of 30% is applicable, and the application of Section 115BBE and Sections 68-69D was unjustified.
What were the facts?
During a survey on August 23, 2016, the assessee, Manju Goyal, surrendered Rs. 50,00,000 as unrecorded business receipts from cash sales, which was invested in building construction and sundry debtors. The assessee included this income under 'Profits and Gains of Business or Profession' and paid tax at 30%. However, the AO and CIT(A) applied Section 115BBE, which was amended on December 15, 2016, retrospectively, leading to a higher tax rate.
What were the issues?
The key legal issue is whether the amended provisions of Section 115BBE can be applied retrospectively to income surrendered before the amendment's effective date, and if the surrendered income should be taxed as business income or under Sections 68-69D.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 115BBE,Section 68,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 69B,Section 69C,Section 69D
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH JODHPUR
Before: DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, HON’BLE & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, HON’BLE
DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC/CIT(A)], Delhi dated 19.09.2024 in respect of Assessment Year: 2017-18 where the assessee has raised following grounds:
That the order passed by the learned authorities below are against Law- Equity-Justice & facts of the case.
That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned authorities below have seriously erred in charging tax u/s 115BBE whereas from the proceedings it is clear that the income surrendered was on account business receipts.
That the learned Assessing Officer (AO) erred in applying the amended provisions of Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 retrospectively. The a
The order continues below.
Read the full judgment
A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.
The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.
More judgments on Section 115BBE
- Vishal Kumar Patel(HUF), Raipur vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), RaipurITA 595/RPR/2026[2017-18]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 875/RJT/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Neepaben Sunnybhai Motwani, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, RajkotITA 874/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetanj Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- J M Mhatre Infra PVT. LTD Thr. Authorized Chetan J. Mhatre vs. Union Of INDIA Thr. Secretary And OrsBombay · 14 Oct 2026
- Namita Behera vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 14 Oct 2026
- Ratul Boro vs. The Union Of INDIA And 4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
- Jashwant Sharma vs. The Union Of INDIA And A4 OrsGauhati · 14 Oct 2026
